Stopped too Soon?

Are Wars Winnable Anymore?

Since Covid, it seems we’ve been living in upside down world. Criminals have murals and statues built to them, and law enforcement is protested and reviled. Illegal aliens get a priority claim on resources while hardworking citizens get brushed aside. Men can become women just by claiming it so, and children who are barred by law from a tanning booth can have their genitals clipped off without their parents’ knowledge.

And now the clear victor in a war agrees to what appears to be terms of its own surrender.

Maybe we’re just stuck in a post WWII mentality, and I suppose many of us yearn for something like a signing ceremony like September, 1945 when Japan surrendered to U.S. forces, but the usual order of things is that the victor draws up the terms upon which it will stop fighting, and the vanquished shows up and signs. End of story. Now the vanquished may be “allowed” to retain some measure of dignity, as Japan did when it was allowed to keep its emperor Hirohito (over the objections of Douglas MacArthur), but that was largely symbolic. The victor gets to impose its will on the loser, and there is a de facto if not de jure loss of sovereignty. The victor will have a big say in how the place will be run for at least some time.

But we are in upside down world now. I read the Memorandum of Understanding and simply did a count of the 14 points that have been agreed to between the U.S. and Iran and tried to read the text dispassionately and did a simple item count. Here’s how I tabulated things:

6 items that are mutual (Items 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 14)

1 item that is an Iranian undertaking (Item 5)

5 items that are U.S. undertakings (Items 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11)

1 naked promise by Iran not to develop nuclear weapons (8)

So, after severely damaging Iran’s nuclear sites, destroying its navy and air force, destroying the vast majority of its missile capability, and decapitates the top two layers of its leadership, the U.S. signs a deal which, on its face, accedes to the demands of Iran in a 5:1 ratio. How does it occur that your country does this much lopsided damage in a war, only to have more obligations imposed on you than the losing side?

Questions and observations:

· Although vastly overwhelmed, Iran was able to find, and exploit, two points of vulnerability. It grabbed America by its capitalist testicles and squeezed- the Straits of Hormuz. And they understood that Trump values his moniker as dealmaker above all else. And when you will pay any price to get a deal, the price is going to be exorbitant.

· If the object of war is to impose your will on another nation, it may be that wars are not winnable in the late 20^th and early 21^st century, or at least not without paying an unacceptable price. The U.S. has had unsatisfactory outcomes in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War II, Afghanistan, and even Gulf War I left Saddam Hussein in power. Russia was expected to take Kiev in a few weeks, and here we are 3 ½ years and 1.5 million casualties later, and Ukraine is still able to hit Moscow.

· Any country buying the Russian or Chinese air defense systems would be well advised to purchase the extended warranty package.

· The conflict exposed the worst of Trump. He was unable to sell the necessity of attacking Iran on the American people. He was criticized by both the Left and the Right and never clearly articulated the war aims. Worse, it exposed his transactional nature by kicking Iran to the curb in the negotiations. Giving Israel no voice in this, and worse, implicitly obligating them in Lebanon, and then publicly calling them out has been horrific. We had to deal with Stalin after WWII because he was an ally. We had no European allies going in and we kicked our only steadfast ally going out.

· Perhaps our military needs to rethink its entire approach to warfare. We do pretty well against centralized authoritarian regimes. We vanquished Hitler’s Germany and Hirohito’s Japan. Despite missteps, we smashed Iraq’s military pretty quickly with few casualties in Gulf War I. Venezuela was taken very surgically. But we do less well against decentralized, networked foes. The fact of the matter is that 20 guys with boxcutters were able to bloody our noses on 9/11 and a decimated Iran was able to buckle Trump’s knees with mosquito boats and a few mines. And we have an annual defense budget of $1 trillion.

· What will China make of this? On one hand, Xi has to believe that the U.S. cannot hang in there in a long conflict and will no absorb large numbers of casualties if it defends Taiwan. On the other, Xi also has to take into account that neither the U.S. or Russia has been successful in their respective war aims. Will that give Xi pause before launching an invasion across the Taiwanese strait?

· While Reagan was known as “the Great Communicator,” Trump is the opposite. He has done a poor job of selling the war and its aims. Worse, because he engages in bluster and hyperbole, it’s the same game the Iranians play.

· Samantha Power, one of Obama’s chief sidekicks, wrote “America in the Age of Genocide,” in which she cited a “duty to intervene” in the event of a genocide, which she took great pains to define down. The regime murdered at least 30,000 of its own people, which would qualify under any of her definitions, yet she and her companions on the left were either silent or actively opposed to U.S. intervention.

· The $300 billion looks suspiciously like back door reparations to me.

The chorus of criticism is loud and fairly uniform, from Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum (The Islamabad Surrender) to Mark Levin to Marc Theissan.

However, in keeping with my screen name, Darkly Optimistic, there are still some positive outcomes out of this entire adventure. A few commentators like Mark Halperin (this may be the best deal Trump can get), and Victor Davis Hanson (the U.S. inflicted a great deal of damage on Iran, and they are reeling and we can bomb with impunity as they have no air defenses) are a great deal more measured.

· Trump has been the only U.S. president to impose serious consequences on the Iranian regime. From the killing of Solemani to operation Midnight Hammer to the present attack, he has kept the pressure on and inflicted enormous economic, military and infrastructure damage.

· His treatment of Israel in the negotiations may redound to its benefit in the long run. While Trump has been a friend to Israel until now, it’s very clear that there is strong opposition to Israel among Democrats, and even active support for Hamas and the Palestinians. There has been more discussion about Israel becoming less dependent on the U.S. militarily. If Democrats come to power in the White House and/or Congress, Israel will have few friends in D.C. The faster they push this along, the better. And we never want them “Eurpoeanized,” i.e. so militarily dependent, it creates resentment.

· Rubio is looking better every day.

· Iran will almost certainly violate the agreement, so as long as Trump is president, there will likely be consequences.

As I’m writing this, Iran is walking out of negotiations and closing the Strait of Hormuz. So this conflict is far from over. And it may be best not to be too despairing about it just yet.